This thread is for University Pastor and BibleStudent to discuss or debate their respective views of evolution or creation. Other members, unless you are explicitly invited, are to refrain from posting here and keep your comments in the commentary thread.

Your first posts should establish the nature of this thread - is it to be a narrowly focused discussion or well regulated debate? If the latter, then I recommend you read this post by Deus ex. He gives some good suggestions for establishing rules for the debate. This is important because it helps me to calibrate the level of moderation you would like.

Once that is done, state your positions and engage per the rules you have set down.

Well I guess I'll get us started. And let me say before I begin that I appreciate your willingness to debate me and your courage to stand up for what you believe in. I hope this can be a mutually beneficial experience for us. I hope you will learn something, and I hope also that you have something to teach.

I think we should agree on a Resolution, a phrase that one of us agrees with and one of us disagrees with, that the debate can be judged in light of.

Something like "Darwin's theory of the origin of species was basically right" or "evolution is good science" would both be fine with me. I'm pretty clearly in favor, and you're pretty clearly against I should think.

If we can, I'd like to stay in the realm of value words, rather than fact words. Fact debates get picky and messy. Values are better, cleaner. Ideally we'd have a policy debate but I don't see the terms for that here. So let's stick with words like "Good" "helpful" "evil" "ridiculous" rather than words like "true" "false" or "proven"

I'll let you pick the res within that criteria. I think It's only fair.

Then we have to decade how the debate should be judged. And I think that should be on balance. Meaning that when we have this debate, I'm going to make some arguments in favor of the theory of evolution, you're going to sake some arguments against the theory, and then we're both going to try to tear down one anothers arguments or use them to defend our own.

I think at the end of the debate, whoever has more powerful arguments that have survived, should win.

That that means is that suppose I come out ans say Evolution is true Because Of A, B and C. And then you come back and say evolution is false because of W,X,Y, and Z and you can show that A is wrong because of Q, and B is wrong because of R.Well then suppose i respond to you and say R is the dumbest thing I've ever heard because of HIJKLMNOP. even if I'm right. I probably Lose

Why? Because you've still got W, X, Y and Z working for you, and I only have B and C.

All that good argumentation I did, didn't help me, do anything but defend B, which wasn't that important of a point to begin with.

Does that make sense? Will you pick a Res for us?

Awesome.

And if you don't mind. Could you spell out for me in your first pose, In addition to what you think the Res should be. What you would consider to be ultimately convincing proof of evolution. What could I show you, to which you would say "oh wow, Okay then I'm on board with this whole evolution thing"

If we can, I'd like to stay in the realm of value words, rather than fact words. Fact debates get picky and messy. Values are better, cleaner. Ideally we'd have a policy debate but I don't see the terms for that here. So let's stick with words like "Good" "helpful" "evil" "ridiculous" rather than words like "true" "false" or "proven"

That that means is that suppose I come out ans say Evolution is true Because Of A, B and C. And then you come back and say evolution is false because of W,X,Y, and Z and you can show that A is wrong because of Q, and B is wrong because of R.

You have to know whether any of those letters are "true" and not just "good". Otherwise, I could provide the entire arabic alphabet - all of it false - on the grounds it was "good".

I think we should agree on a Resolution, a phrase that one of us agrees with and one of us disagrees with, that the debate can be judged in light of.

Something like "Darwin's theory of the origin of species was basically right" or "evolution is good science" would both be fine with me. I'm pretty clearly in favor, and you're pretty clearly against I should think.

“Evolution is good science” <--- I am fine with this. It’s a bit broad but should serve as fairly good backdrop for the conversation.

If we can, I'd like to stay in the realm of value words, rather than fact words. Fact debates get picky and messy. Values are better, cleaner. Ideally we'd have a policy debate but I don't see the terms for that here. So let's stick with words like "Good" "helpful" "evil" "ridiculous" rather than words like "true" "false" or "proven"

Not sure how we can have a truly meaningful debate by dismissing words such as "true" "false" or "proven." I prefer that we leave the door open for use of these words and other synonyms of each and endeavor to use them selectively when we feel it is necessary. Are you okay with that?

What could I show you, to which you would say "oh wow, Okay then I'm on board with this whole evolution thing"

My contention is not limited to one specific issue that, if demonstrated to be accurate, would sway me into accepting the whole of evolutionary theory. However, if I had to choose one item that I would place near the top of my list, it’s the failure of evolution to account for speciation.

Basic definition: Speciation is the natural process by which new species are formed.

1. I invite you to present a case for demonstrating that evolution can adequately account for the formation of new species from existing ones.2. Kindly provide your interpretation of the terms ‘micro’ and macro’ evolution and how you would expect these terms to be defined.

Sorry for the confusion fellas. I was just talking about using value words within the resolution to make it easier to judge on a sliding scale.

Of course we will be using fact words as we discuss. My mistake for being unclear.

So now we have the res, with that word "good" in it so my goal is to stack up arguments that make it look good, and you'll stack up arguments that make it look bad, and at the end if it looks more good than bad I win. Of course on my way to do that I'll show a lot of things to be true or false, as will you.

And BibleStudent, in answer to your query about macroevolution, forget it. It's not a word Darwinists really use anymore, It's just very popular where I live for someone to respond to the question "Do you believe in evolution?" by asking "Well are you talking about microevolution or macroevolution" I just wanted to avoid that.

Now regarding Speciation, by that you just mean a series of cumulative changes sufficient that the altered population can no longer produce fertile offspring with the unaltered population right? Because that's how we generally define species...

And BibleStudent, in answer to your query about macroevolution, forget it. It's not a word Darwinists really use anymore, It's just very popular where I live for someone to respond to the question "Do you believe in evolution?" by asking "Well are you talking about microevolution or macroevolution" I just wanted to avoid that.

I am not surprised that you want to "avoid it." I absolutely, positively do not buy this “micro-and-macro-are-inseparable” thing. It is nothing more than a clever way of trying to make speciation somehow as valid as microevolution….when IT IS NOT. Microevolution has tremendous merit and is considered ‘fact.’ The role of evolution to account for ‘new’ species from ‘existing’ species is weak, at best. Just because science has successfully slipped this deceit into high school school books does not make it valid.

Now regarding Speciation, by that you just mean a series of cumulative changes sufficient that the altered population can no longer produce fertile offspring with the unaltered population right? Because that's how we generally define species...

I guess??

I just want you to demonstrate, using whatever means you have, that evolutionary models and/or fossil evidence legitimately argues for speciation. From where I sit, there is a MASSIVE hole in any attempt to legitimately account for the birth of ‘new’ species.

In other words, convince me why you feel evolutionary speciation is worth believing.

And BibleStudent, in answer to your query about macroevolution, forget it. It's not a word Darwinists really use anymore, It's just very popular where I live for someone to respond to the question "Do you believe in evolution?" by asking "Well are you talking about microevolution or macroevolution" I just wanted to avoid that.

I am not surprised that you want to "avoid it." I absolutely, positively do not buy this “micro-and-macro-are-inseparable” thing. It is nothing more than a clever way of trying to make speciation somehow as valid as microevolution….when IT IS NOT. Microevolution has tremendous merit and is considered ‘fact.’ The role of evolution to account for ‘new’ species from ‘existing’ species is weak, at best. Just because science has successfully slipped this deceit into high school school books does not make it valid.

I didn't want to avoid defending all aspects of evolution. I only wanted to avoid the little smart aleky comment.

It's good to know you consider change within a species fact. I'm a little concerned about something though

[quote[Just because science has successfully slipped this deceit into high school school books does not make it valid. [/quote]

What do you mean here?

Surely you don't mean to imply that the system of generating and then testing a hypothesis has somehow forewarded an agenda with the education system. Still it sounds to me like you're saying something nearly as odd, that being that the scientific community (of people), has some axe to grind, causing them to try intentionally and get things changed.

I get this silly picture of guys in white lab coats looking at a geology book with microscopes and such, and one of them is in the background shrugging. :shrug

Anyway the picture is so thoroughly silly that I'm sure that's not what you mean at all. Unfortunately I can't figure out exactly what it is you do mean.

Can we agree, for instance. That science is good? I think we can. Science after all is the study of creation, God's creation. Kepler used the analogy that creation and the bible are the only two things we have access to that God made with directly, and so studying creation is like studying scripture in helping you learn more of the mind of God.

Can we agree also, that the scientific community pretty much spends their time doing and teaching science (most of them work at universities)While the school board decides which text books to use. While publishers decide who gets to write the textbooks that are going to be available to the school board. So there's no conspiracy going on here.

I think we can agree on that too, Christians are good at silencing conspiracies.

So if there is misinformation in the textbooks. it must be because the editor for Houten Mifflin didn't do enough research, and decided to kinda write whatever he kinda thought was true in the book. and then the school board bought it. And you're right, just because that happened does not make it true. I think our standards for citation throughout this debate need to be above that of a high school textbook Agreed?

Now regarding Speciation, by that you just mean a series of cumulative changes sufficient that the altered population can no longer produce fertile offspring with the unaltered population right? Because that's how we generally define species...

I guess??

I just want you to demonstrate, using whatever means you have, that evolutionary models and/or fossil evidence legitimately argues for speciation. From where I sit, there is a MASSIVE hole in any attempt to legitimately account for the birth of ‘new’ species.

How about instead i just show you how you cam make speciation happen in your own home?

I mean we could debate about the fossil record forever and a day and talk about whether one bone in china is from the same species as a bone found in Africa and so on, but since we can't show who bones are willing to mate with, we can't give you that really immediate dividing line you're looking for. We can show you fossil records that span multiple species (and I will, in my opening arguments) but if you want an example of specialization i think we can do better.

We could also debate about natural selection. and I could try to talk to you about the Greenish Warbler, which is one example of Parapatric speciation in action, as it is turning into different species right now in the wild as we speak. But of course since evolution professes these changes take millions of years, if i were to take you out to the Himalayas and we were to watch a warbler evolve before our eyes in a matter of minutes, it would be significant evidence against the process of changes over time developing species bit by bit.

This process, If true, really needs to take more than our entire lifetime to happen. (for the most part anyway, but if it were going to happen within a generation or two in the wild we wouldn't know when and where and be able to record it)

Then the question becomes, Is there anyway to speed up the tape? Can I do what natural selection does, only faster, so I get to see it during my lifetime. and the answer is, You sure can!

Artificial Selection, a very established function wherein instead of migratory patterns changing, or natural disasters separating ecosystems, humans go ahead and pick out desirable traits ourselfs, can cause specialization within only a couple generations of certain rapidly mating species, such that they don't want to mate with one another anymore.

Can we agree, for instance. That science is good? I think we can. Science after all is the study of creation, God's creation. Kepler used the analogy that creation and the bible are the only two things we have access to that God made with directly, and so studying creation is like studying scripture in helping you learn more of the mind of God.

Can we agree also, that the scientific community pretty much spends their time doing and teaching science (most of them work at universities)While the school board decides which text books to use. While publishers decide who gets to write the textbooks that are going to be available to the school board. So there's no conspiracy going on here.

Agree up until the part I bolded. Let's just say that I do not believe everything coming out of the halls of science is absent some form of manipulation. We see forms of deceit and falsehoods in virtually every aspect of our lives....why should I feel science is any different?

So if there is misinformation in the textbooks. it must be because the editor for Houten Mifflin didn't do enough research, and decided to kinda write whatever he kinda thought was true in the book. and then the school board bought it. And you're right, just because that happened does not make it true. I think our standards for citation throughout this debate need to be above that of a high school textbook Agreed?

Does it really matter if the citations are from a high school text book, or not.....so long as they conform to whatever your argument is or is not? I don't see the need to make a distinction. If it helps any, though, I am not sitting here with a high school biology book in front of me prepared to quote from it.

Can we agree also, that the scientific community pretty much spends their time doing and teaching science (most of them work at universities)While the school board decides which text books to use. While publishers decide who gets to write the textbooks that are going to be available to the school board. So there's no conspiracy going on here.

Agree up until the part I bolded. Let's just say that I do not believe everything coming out of the halls of science is absent some form of manipulation. We see forms of deceit and falsehoods in virtually every aspect of our lives....why should I feel science is any different?

Okay, well i think the part you bolded moves pretty clearly from the rest of the paragraph.

There is no single, shadowy organization, with an agenda, controlling what science goes into textbooks.

but yes, I think it's very reasonable to think that some assumptions we've made in science will turn out to be false, just as some of the assumptions we are making in history will no doubt turn out to be ultimatley false. Everybody's just doing the best they can.

So if there is misinformation in the textbooks. it must be because the editor for Houten Mifflin didn't do enough research, and decided to kinda write whatever he kinda thought was true in the book. and then the school board bought it. And you're right, just because that happened does not make it true. I think our standards for citation throughout this debate need to be above that of a high school textbook Agreed?

Does it really matter if the citations are from a high school text book, or not.....so long as they conform to whatever your argument is or is not? I don't see the need to make a distinction. If it helps any, though, I am not sitting here with a high school biology book in front of me prepared to quote from it.

Yeah no, don't do that.

I'm not a high school student and neither are you. Let's agree to conform to a higher standard of literacy than that of a high schooler.

I mean that if i do that, if i show you tonight a way to artificially select traits in a species such that within a few generations the separated groups won't want to mate with one another anymore would you then accept that as convincing evidence of speciation, and by association, the rest of evolution.

My main argument, My primary voting issue, and hopefully the primary topic of discussion throughout this debate will be the following.

There is no reason, whatsoever, not to believe that evolution is good science.

There is no evidence against it. There is no disadvantage to holding it, and perhaps most importantly to us, there is no biblical or theological difficulty with evolution.

Remember I’m a Theistic Evolutionist. That means arguments like Behe’s argument for Irreducible Complexity support my claim rather than oppose it. I’m all for intelligent design. You need to show me why not evolution also.

I want this point to be the main argument Biblestudent, because it is the one thing we really can agree on. I believe in the special divine inspiration and entire trustworthiness of the bible. I trust that so do you. So we can make biblical arguments back and fourth and absolutely agree with one another’s sources.

On the other hand I’m assuming that you don’t really trust secular scientists, and I certainly don’t trust creation scientists, so even our best laid plans to discuss the science for evolution will run aground, unless I can help you out of your biblical rut that says you have to believe it’s a lie or you’re not taking the bible seriously

Of course I’m in support of the Resolution, You being against it have presumption on your side. We all assume you’re right going in. So even if I’m right that there’s no reason not to believe it. Unless I offer a reason why one believe it, You will still have one the debate.

However if I win the Main argument, if I demonstrate that there is no reason under the sun why not, then all I need is the tiniest sliver of reasoning in it’s defense Just the tiniest spark of thought that would make one think my side of the scale is heavier. And I’ll take this debate. So that’s what Side B is about

B:

1.Most Scientists Believe Evolution

Isn’t this alone enough? I mean if there is absolutely no reason not to believe it, and almost every working scientist there is does believe it, doesn’t that add enough to the side of believing it to make it more than just a coin toss?

Even if not. In order to explain away this incredible inequality in the scientific community you have only 2 options:

One, you could believe you personally know more about biology than most biologistsOr two, you could believe that scientists are so devoted to not following God that they’ve allowed their eyes to be blinded from the truth.

But if you go with option two, how do you account for all the Evolutionist Scientist Christians?

How do you account for Dr. Francis Collins, the head of the human Genome project, who just wrote a book providing evidence for belief in God, Also being an evolutionist?2. I have demonstrated evolution according to BS’s own criterion.

Biblestudent and I are in the process of hammering down exactly what it is that would count as satisfying evidence to convince him, my debate opponent, that evolution is true. Once I get him to give me a straight answer about what is satisfactory I have no doubt I’ll be able to provide it for him.

Alternativly, He may never give me a straight answer, or keep moving the goalposts around every time I try to kick a field goal. I don’t expect this, because I think BS is an individual of high moral character and I don’t think he’d be intentionally deceptive. But if he does, then I think this second point stands prima facie “BS is so confident that if he gave me a criteria I would meet it that he hasn’t even given me one” would become the alternate contention.

3. It is implied by the biblical narrative.

How cool is it that Christians for 2000 years, have been believing that the universe at one time did not exist, and then came into existence via a process whereby the earth came into existence first, then land, then the basic forms of life beginning in the oceans, then higher and higher forms of life until we finally reached the apex of creation with humans?

So Cool!

Long before Darwin, scientists assumed that everything has always happened, more or less the way it happens today. There are animals today, I talked to my great grandfather, there were animals then, there were probably always animals!

Seems logical enough, but we Christians had to disagree with that non-biblical scientific consensus because it didn’t match the bible.

Then puzzlingly, scientists figured out that the stars are moving away from one another, as if the universe is expanding. They began to theorize that there was such a time that the universe did not exist and it came into existence. Background radiation implied that this happened very suddenly in a Big Bang.

And the Christians, instead of doing the reasonable thing which would be to say “Yes Yes! Exactly! This is what we have been saying all along, and our God is the God who did it” we said “No! this is Heresy! Don’t believe these scientific lies!”

And when scientists began to be enamored with evolution, the theory that there was a process of life developing on this planet beginning in the oceans and ending with man, we did the same thing.

Why?

It wasn’t because of our adherence to scripture! Origin had already written centuries earlier that Genesis 1-3 need not be taken literally. Augustine said similar things.

We have actually bent out interpretation of scripture, around out need to be against evolution. There was no way, in a world without Darwin, we would be teaching a literal interpretation of what is clearly a Hebrew eulogy and a song in Genesis 1 and 2

So what did we so badly need to oppose evolution for?

I think it was our fault, You and I, the apologists.

William Paley who first forwarded the famous Watchmaker Argument had at that time become well known for objectively demonstrating a god’s existence. You’re no doubt familiar, with it, but for the sake of our readers, the argument goes like this:

1. The complex inner workings of a watch necessitate an intelligent designer.2. As with a watch, the complexity of X (a particular organ or organism, the structure of the solar system, life, the entire universe) necessitates a designer.

Well Darwin shut Paley right up with his theory of evolution, at least when it comes to biological systems. And we Christians, we can be kindof defensive of our own kind. So even though Paley wasn’t scripture, the debate became very them vs. us, with Darwin on the side of “them” against us and Paley.

The problem is though, Paley was wrong, and the bible is still right. The complexity something has doesn’t prove it was created, complex things can come into existence via natural processes.

Things with a “telos” or purpose? No.Things with information in them? No.Things with certain kinds of complexity that imply design? Probably not.But complex things, sure, all the time!

4. Other Stuff.

I want to put some ink down on this, in my opening argument, but I really doubt I’ll need it. If by some change I’m winning contention A and losing on B I want to have the option to return back to these points on case, but as long as I’m getting stuff done everywhere else we don’t even have to touch these things

Anyway you can go ahead and answer those as briefly as you want to. You should put something fourth as an answer to them but you don’t need much at all. For instance under IV, if you just want to say “the flood” that’s plenty, and if I decide I need to disagree with you I’ll take it from there. I’d be really happy to see you win on all 5 of these if I win on A and get just a tiny bit on B because that would mean I definitely won the debate.

In Summary

Let me say one more time, The majority of this debate should be on point A, and off case. I believe that you can give me no reasonable evidence against evolution, you should spend most of your time proving that false. Point B can be summarized, "and I can give you at least a little evidence in favor of evolution", so you should cover B at least enough to make it less powerful than whatever you put in your opening arguments which I await with baited breath!

Isn’t this alone enough? I mean if there is absolutely no reason not to believe it, and almost every working scientist there is does believe it, doesn’t that add enough to the side of believing it to make it more than just a coin toss?

No, this is not enough. Aside from it being an argument ad populum, even it was a convincing argument, most everyone would have to concede to its validity….and that is certainly far from the case. In fact, I could just as easily turn this around ask you why ALL of science has not come to believe evolution?

Also, to illustrate the lack of validity to your statement, consider the following statement in relation: Most Scientists Believe The Moon is in Orbit Around The Earth.” Contrary to your statement, this statement contains irrefutable evidence to support it. In other words, one would have to be substantially incompetent to deny that the moon is in orbit around the earth. In contrast to your statement, we are not compelled to reach the same conclusion because, at present, evolutionary theory to account for the beginning and diversification of life is littered with enormous gaps and a lack of scientific proofs.

Furthermore, consider that the scientific community is occupied by a disproportionate number of non-theists v. theists. This lack of equal representation varies amongst the different scientific disciplines, however, it is well documented that theists occupy a small percentage of the scientific community. Does this mean there is dishonesty and bias present within science? I am not asserting that there definitely is, but consider the following:

Researching the extent of intentional fraud among scientists, Daniele Fanelli of the University of Edinburgh, UK discovered that scientists cheat, lie and steal other people’s works. According to him, 1.97% of scientists admit to having fabricated, modified or even falsified data or results at least once. A staggering 33.7% admitted other questionable research practices like changing the methodology, design or results of a study under pressure from a funding source. When evaluating the behaviour of colleagues, 14.12% was the rate of falsification and 72% for questionable practices.http://originalwavelength.blogspot.com/2009/09/do-scientists-lie-and-cheat_06.html

These are staggering numbers and enough to suggest that it is prudent to be cautious when receiving what science relays to the general public. Let me just give you an example. It is often said that “Evolution is a Fact”…which implies that it is irrefutable and proven beyond a reasonable doubt. This is a very deceptive comment for science or anyone to make to the general public, and in particular to hungry young minds. Yes, evolution is factual in certain areas (such as natural selection), but it is not factual when speaking about speciation. And, for those who do not understand that the study of life’s origin (abiogenesis) is not considered part of evolution, it becomes even more misleading. Making general comments like “Evolution is a Fact” is, to a certain extent, a form of propaganda that I believe too many people have ignorantly bought into.

What I am asserting here is not to be construed as an accusation that science can never be trusted. Absolutely not. Rather, my argument is that corruption and deceit and greed exist within all peoples in all societies and it is never prudent to believe something simply because a significant number of people represent that it is true.

Even if not. In order to explain away this incredible inequality in the scientific community you have only 2 options:

One, you could believe you personally know more about biology than most biologistsOr two, you could believe that scientists are so devoted to not following God that they’ve allowed their eyes to be blinded from the truth.

I choose neither. Instead, what I assert is that science has failed to adequately provide, beyond hypotheticals, critical evidence for the process that it alleges has created complex life and brought about its diversification. Even to this day, after decades of hypothesizing, testing, researching, and digging….I have yet to see ONE SINGLE convincing argument for speciation.

But if you go with option two, how do you account for all the Evolutionist Scientist Christians?

How do you account for Dr. Francis Collins, the head of the human Genome project, who just wrote a book providing evidence for belief in God, Also being an evolutionist?

I cannot account for them nor do I see any value, insofar as this discussion is concerned, for giving their ‘beliefs’ any merit. If you would like to introduce certain interpretations these scientists have made for consideration, I would be glad to review and discuss.

Using the credibility of recognized experts in a certain field is a poor opening to your argument. Had this been further on down in your list, I might have received it as an ancillary part to the weightier aspects of your argument. However, given its place as number 1., I suspect that perhaps you are easily swayed into believing something based on how people of stature believe. As you may know, an argument ad populum bears little weight in a discussion at this level.

2. I have demonstrated evolution according to BS’s own criterion.Biblestudent and I are in the process of hammering down exactly what it is that would count as satisfying evidence to convince him, my debate opponent, that evolution is true. Once I get him to give me a straight answer about what is satisfactory I have no doubt I’ll be able to provide it for him.

I have already indicated where one of my largest contentions resides….that is, in the area of macroevolutionary theory. I had invited you to provide something in your opening argument that convinced you science could adequately account for speciation. Where is the information pertaining to this aspect of your argument?

The complexity something has doesn’t prove it was created, complex things can come into existence via natural processes.

Things with a “telos” or purpose? No.Things with information in them? No.Things with certain kinds of complexity that imply design? Probably not.But complex things, sure, all the time!

I snipped most of this section of your post to conserve space. This part of your argument is interesting because it leads me to believe that you do not understand the distinction that science makes between evolution and the origins of life. Personally, it is my position that you cannot discuss one without the other but biological science is adamant that one has no bearing on the other.

Am I to infer from your comments that you, like me, believes that evolution and the origins of life are overlapping? I suggest you think this through before you answer lest you inflict irreparable damage to your argument for evolution.

For the record, please know that I am all for tying the two fields of study together.

I want to put some ink down on this, in my opening argument, but I really doubt I’ll need it. If by some change I’m winning contention A and losing on B I want to have the option to return back to these points on case, but as long as I’m getting stuff done everywhere else we don’t even have to touch these things

Anyway you can go ahead and answer those as briefly as you want to. You should put something fourth as an answer to them but you don’t need much at all. For instance under IV, if you just want to say “the flood” that’s plenty, and if I decide I need to disagree with you I’ll take it from there. I’d be really happy to see you win on all 5 of these if I win on A and get just a tiny bit on B because that would mean I definitely won the debate.

Since I see no argument being made here, I will not attempt a counter.

Each one of these items is a discussion all its own. I encourage you to incorporate them into your argument as you see fit…..that is, if you ever get to making an argument as to why I should accept macroevolutionary theory….or why you feel the term ‘macroevolution’ is a misnomer.

You have covered the foundations you would like to have in place during our discussion. Now, let’s hear what you have to offer which makes Christianity and evolution compatible as respects speciation.

Do You mind me calling you BS by the way? I hope you don't take it as disrespectful, It's just the initials of your username. They all call me UP.

The only other choices I can think of would be BibS, Or Bi-Stud, and I don't think either of those is better.

Anyway, before I reply I want to give you a chance to get your Opening Arguments up. the reasons not to believe evolution. That's going to be really really important to you considering that my main argument is that you don't have any.

Also, I still need a reply to my question from before my opening arguments

Quote

if i show you tonight a way to artificially select traits in a species such that within a few generations the separated groups won't want to mate with one another anymore would you then accept that as convincing evidence of speciation, and by association, the rest of evolution.

That's really important too since I made that my second subpoint under my part B. and if you don't give me a fair goal to shoot for I set it up so that that proves the subpoint for me.

In other words, Right now, even if I don't disprove any of the arguments You've offered so far, I'm still winning the debate. All i need to win as A and a tiny bit on B

I am starting to feel as though you are ‘toying’ with me….or perhaps stalling for some reason.

1. You asked me why I do not believe that TOE is compatible with Christianity….or, more specifically, what it would take to convince me that it is. In fact, your question was as follows: “what could I show, to which you would say “oh wow, Okay then I’m on board with this whole evolution thing”

I answered: “My contention is not limited to one specific issue that, if demonstrated to be accurate, would sway me into accepting the whole of evolutionary theory. However, if I had to choose one item that I would place near the top of my list, it’s the failure of evolution to account for speciation.”….and…..”I have yet to see ONE SINGLE convincing argument for speciation.”

The ball is back in your court, friend. I answered your question. Do you have something…anything?….to offer?

2.You: "if i show you tonight a way to artificially select traits in a species such that within a few generations the separated groups won't want to mate with one another anymore would you then accept that as convincing evidence of speciation, and by association, the rest of evolution".....“can I show you tonight.”Me: “Please...by all means....be my guest.”

It’s two days later and you still haven’t shown me anything!

3.You: “would that crash evolution for you?”Me: “What do you mean by "crash evolution"??

Anyway, before I reply I want to give you a chance to get your Opening Arguments up. the reasons not to believe evolution. That's going to be really really important to you considering that my main argument is that you don't have any.

Uh…..was this not clear enough?:

Quote

“My contention is not limited to one specific issue that, if demonstrated to be accurate, would sway me into accepting the whole of evolutionary theory. However, if I had to choose one item that I would place near the top of my list, it’s the failure of evolution to account for speciation.”….and…..”I have yet to see ONE SINGLE convincing argument for speciation.”

5. So far, all you’ve offered up is a VERY weak assertion that implies I should believe TOE is compatible with Christianity because most of science believes it. If that’s all you have for me to go on, this discussion is over. I am not moved by popular belief unless it has something valid to offer. If you feel it has something valid to offer, let’s see what you have, PLEASE.

Look, I apologize if this sounds rude, but I do not have time for all of this point A and subsection B2 stuff you keep chirping about. I have told you what is one of the more significant areas I find unconvincing (ie. macroevolution/ speciation). Do you want me to list out the rest of the problems I have? I hope not because I fear we’ll be discussing how and why I didn’t respond to section Y, subsection W7 and why you ‘won’ topic G91 before we ever start to get anywhere.

I have never been personally involved in a formal debate, so I may not be the best person to explain it. Maybe UniversityPastor could confirm or correct me where I am wrong?

If you do not wish to follow this format, that is fine. You are allowed. But I think you should agree to whatever format you are going to use before going forward. That way everyone will have the same expectations.

It's a little tricky for the second speaker (or typer in this case) because they have to open their case, just after a previous speech. Sometimes in competitive debate this means cramming your whole case into a timed speech along with replies to your opponent. Sometimes it's considered better form to wait to reply to the opening statements until the rebuttal.

I don't honestly care which one, or even if we're doing something else. I'm not trying to be a stickler. I just wanted to be extra super fair to BS and make sure he had a chance to give some arguments for evolution being bad science. I mean if he doesn't...This is going to be a really sad lopsided debate. I made that my Main Premise already, If he does nothing to address it.... Well he's doomed.

I apologize. I did not realize we were going to do this in such a formal structured format. I had read through some of the past discussions in the archives and it seemed that most of them were more of an informal, free-flowing debate. In fact, for whatever reason, I had it in my head that the primary reason for setting up a separate thread was to keep the participants limited and minimize the background noise.

I have to think about whether I want to move forward with this or not.

Again, I do apologize for failing to understand "how" UP was desiring to carryout this discussion.

Yeah I just sort of laid it out that way because I was on the pro side and the Moderator wanted some info on how to moderate. I did it my way and it seemed pretty good with you. You picked a res and everything.

Anyway this doesn't have to be complicated. You just need to make your opening arguments now

In college my coach used to say that a debtor needs to prove 2 things

1. I'm Cool2. You're dumb

Proving that my arguments are dumb will never be enough to win you any debate, no matter how informal, unless you can also prove that You have better arguments to support your side.

So you did the "You're dumb"

Now you need an "I'm cool"

there doesn't have to be any fancy formal stuff after that, I'll have it all organised for you in the commentary thread, so you know where everything applies. You just have to make sure there's more of your strong arguments that I can't answer than there are of mine that you can't answer.

The problem is right now there are none of yours that I can't answer, because there are none of yours at all. and there are 3 of mine which you've already failed to answer. So you really need to do something about that.

But BS, I have to be the tough guy for just a minute here. Please do not think for a second that after my opening posts, and accepting my resolution, and hearing my arguments laid out that you can now choose "not to carryout the discussion"

You are currently involved in a debate which you are losing...horribly!

You don't get to "not carryout the discussion" from here. You're welcome to "forfeit" but you can't just decide you don't want to play anymore. I threw down a gauntlet that says you have no reason for not believing evolution. Either you can prove me wrong or you can't. there is no "well I could but i'm just not going to because I don't have time" we're not High schoolers, and we're not playground children either.

The answer to this question is no, not always. However, there are aspects of it that deserve scrutiny and criticism. There are a number of reasons for making this statement, however, I would like to use something referred to as “speciation” throughout this debate as an illustrative point in making my argument. But, before I go any further, I would like to clarify that I, personally, believe in and support the bulk of microevolutionary theory so long as it as not used as proof-positive that macroevolutionary theory is equally established. Now, I realize that my opponent will try to tell you that science no longer makes a distinction between micro and macro evolution and that use of these terms on my part are indicative of ignorance. Evolutionary science would like us all to believe that is unnecessary to distinguish between the two because microevolution has been proven and all macroevolution is is a bunch of microevolution at work. Well, it is my belief that this assertion made by evolutionary science is mere propaganda employed to deceive the masses into believing that evolution can successfully account for all of the steps in the evolutionary process. It is an outright deception based on the unproven belief that microevolution produces macroevolution if enough time is allowed. I am often puzzled as to why the term 'macroevolution' is not an appropriate word for identifying 'speciation.' In other words, why am I criticized for using the term 'macroevolution' when it can be understood to mean the same thing as 'speciation'?

You may be wondering why I am even making this point when I have already indicated that “speciation” will be the focal point for making my argument. It is important because I want folks to know that the speciation I am talking about is the study of speciation that struggles to demonstrate microevolution is a satisfactory explanation for it. In other words, I am referring to speciation on a macro level…..which can clearly demonstrate that we all share a common ancestor. This is something that evolutionary science is eager to demonstrate and, while I would never go so far as to make direct accusations, I intend to provide some evidence as to why we should be suspicious that some of evolutionary science is being irresponsible in its presentation of the facts.

Anyway...moving on. I just want give one quick example of what I am talking about here with regards to presenting the facts. I often read statements such as “Evolution is a Fact.” Well, that is both true and false. Evolutionary changes on a micro level are demonstrable and adequate enough to convince most anyone that they do occur. However, when we venture into an evolutionary discussion about changes on a macro level (ie. Speciation), the evidence supporting these changes is lacking. For the vast majority of people who are unfamiliar with certain distinctions that are made by evolutionary science, a statement such as the above (“Evolution is a Fact”) conveys a potentially misleading conclusion. Ask most people if they believe this statement also accounts for the origins of life as well and they will answer in the affirmative. It is not commonly known that evolutionary theory is only concerned with what happened after life began…..but most people do not understand this and think evolution is what gives the answer to how life began. Yet, we are frequently told that “Evolution is a Fact” as though everyone is capable of understanding its true meaning.

In conclusion, I would ask that you ponder the following questions when considering whether evolutionary science is good science or not: Why is it that “pure” creation science is not given a fair shake by the scientific community? Why is it, by and large, disregarded as worthy of hypotheticals in light of inability to provide solid evidence for speciation? Why is evolutionary archaeology not more interested in demonstrating that the fossil record be used to establish that speciation might be due to Intelligent Design?

Also:

“. . . Richard Potts, curator and director of the Smithsonian’s Human Origins Program, said the Smithsonian Institution has a “deep commitment to the study of evolution” and that the new permanent exhibit will answer “profound questions” about human origins.When asked by CNSNews.com why the exhibit does not include any reference to God or address the debate—even in scientific circles—about Darwinian evolution, Potts replied that the Natural History Museum ‘is a science museum, and all the objects that a museum can possibly display about the origins of humans have been uncovered in the context of doing the science of evolution.” (source: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/au/smithsonian-exhibition-deception-atheism)

Are we to infer from this that God has no place in science?

B1. Is there reason to suspect that evolutionary science is biased?

Is it possible that the research, studies, and conclusions within evolutionary science are conducted with an inherent dictate to prove that evolution is valid and provable….at all costs. Certainly, science is just as susceptible to corruption as, say, Wallstreet. Consider the following:

“The fact that scientists sometimes might cheat and can fail to be objective is something that is very well known,” said Daniele Fanelli, a scientific fraud researcher at the University of Edinburgh. “Research is full of conflicts of interest”….. “More than a third of scientists admitted to at least one instance of engaging in "questionable research practices" - basically scientific misdemeanors that include “dropping data points based on a gut feeling” and “changing the design, methodology or results of a study in response to pressures from a funding source,” the report stated.” (source: http://news.medill.northwestern.edu/chicago/news.aspx?id=157268)

Dr Jonathan Wells published a book in 2002 demonstrating how many of the recognized so-called evidences for evolution were exaggerated, misrepresented, and even faked.

I am not charging all of evolutionary science with corruption and bias. This type of behavior is, admittedly, not the norm. However, we need to consider the existence of this behavior when deciding if science is good in terms of whether it is presenting the true facts.

2. Back to basics for a bit- The Fossil Record

Now, granted, there have been fossil discoveries of creatures that contain peculiar mixtures of traits from more than one animal, yet evolutionary science will often indicate that it represents “proof” of evolution. The truth is, evolutionary science has been unable to produce one solid example of transitional fossil. Now, if evolution were true, shouldn’t we have identified literally thousands of transitional fossils by now. We have been digging for decades and have identified virtually every known layer in the strata. My opponent will try to tell you that this is an “old” argument that has little weight in establishing the merits of speciation. In fact, science will tell you that what I am saying here is not true and many will point to, as an example, the great Archaeopteryx….considered by many to be a crucial part of the “missing link.” I had the occasion recently to discuss this creature with a biologist who is very familiar with it and, in the end, he was compelled to admit that this creature is not an irrefutable example of transition. Good science would responsibly present it for what it truly is rather than “proof.”

I would also ask, why is that virtually every fossil presented as evidence for evolution is a vertebrate? Does it have anything to do with the fact that only .01% of the fossil record? Why is this? Food for thought.

Folks, the point here is, we are not constrained to observe the fossil record for the sole purpose of establishing whether 'speciation' can be observed in the evolutionary process. There is much within the fossil record to explain why we see new species arising so abruptly and how it corresponds to a Biblical account of creation.

3. Speciation as a means to prove Creationism

So much of evolutionary science points to Intelligent Design. The complexity of life alone should give rise to serious scientific inquiry as to whether there was a Creator Mind behind it. The intricate detail of the cells of our body, our minds, and how we stand so far apart from all other living creatures should be tested, or at least considered, in the formulation of evolutionary theories. Creationism is, far and away, a more plausible explanation for speciation. The Biblical account for creation clearly explains differing species and their origin yet it is, by and large, dismissed by the scientific community. It seems as though there is an element of intent at work to disprove the Bible rather than give it credence. Why is this so?

Christian-Evolutionists such as my opponent are compromising their Biblical beliefs for no good reason. They are being led to believe that it is more logical and more rational to demonstrate their intellect by accepting evolutionary theory. The Bible explains why we observe so many different species in our world and also provides a sound basis for establishing why we cannot observe it with certainty in the evolutionary models or research. There is simply no reason to believe that any of the studied forms of evolutionary speciation are even necessary. As a Christian, my opponent knows that the Bible teaches a sudden and instant origin to the birth of man. The Bible gives no indication that we evolved over millions of years so how does he resolve to accept a blended version of evolution and creationism?

The only true occurrence of speciation took place when the Creator created life on this planet we occupy!

4. Popular belief

I cannot help but respond, at this point, to my opponents assertion that evolutionary science is good science simply because “most scientists accept it.” While I see his point, it is a weak pair of legs for such a weighty belief, don’t you think?

Please note the following sentence which is in the opening: “Public TV programs, educational policy statements, and science textbooks have asserted that Darwin’s theory of evolution fully explains the complexity of living things.”

CONCLUSION

My opponent contends that Christianity can be compatible with evolution. As a Christian myself, I accuse him of placing God’s Word into a worldview inconsistent with the Bible that he bases his faith on. He does not need evolution to explain the account of creation the Bible clearly lays out. Reputable Christian scientists have laid out highly plausible explanations for how any concept of evolution can be explained by the Biblical record of creation. If he honestly believes that evolutionary science is “good science,” he must successfully demonstrate, for the purposes of this argument, that it has and is giving some recognition to a Creator as means of explaining the complex occurrence of "speciation"....particularly since the Bible he and I use explains it all very well !

Now, I realize that my opponent will try to tell you that science no longer makes a distinction between micro and macro evolution and that use of these terms on my part are indicative of ignorance. Evolutionary science would like us all to believe that is unnecessary to distinguish between the two because microevolution has been proven and all macroevolution is is a bunch of microevolution at work. Well, it is my belief that this assertion made by evolutionary science is mere propaganda employed to deceive the masses into believing that evolution can successfully account for all of the steps in the evolutionary process.

...

Quote

In other words, I am referring to speciation on a macro level…..which can clearly demonstrate that we all share a common ancestor. This is something that evolutionary science is eager to demonstrate and, while I would never go so far as to make direct accusations, I intend to provide some evidence as to why we should be suspicious that some of evolutionary science is being irresponsible in its presentation of the facts.

I tried to snip you as best as i could without being deleterious to your argument. I found this difficult because I couldn't really find your argument. You titled this section the same thing as the resolution, so I'm not really sure where you were going with this. But you seemed to spend the majority of your space in this section talking about macroevolution, So In my Head, I'm retitling this section "Macroevolution and Microevolution are different"

And that's fine. Seriously I'm okay with that. They can be different. Like I said Darwinists don't really use the word anymore so between us we can use it to mean whatever you want. You want it to mean speciation. Cool, Whatever. Even if they're different though, they're still both true, for the reasons I enumerated (there's no evidence against them, there is scientific consensus in it's favor, I met your criterion, it's biblicaly implied, Etc.)

I want to say just a word, on this persecution complex I'm reading here. I may just be picking up on something that's not there, but you seem to think that evolutionists have abandoned use of the word macroevolution, in order to trick people. This is not the case. The distinction fell out of popularity when it was realized that there was no adequate line of demarcation between micro and macro. Nobody is denyinng that some evolutionary changes are small (micro), while others are very substantial (macro), the problem is simply that there's a lot of evolutionary changes that are in between, and there's no real good line to draw. So it came to be regarded that it was really more usefull to describe the scope of whatever process we were talking about by saying "substancial" or "minor" or "major" or "kinda major" rather than splitting everything up into two arbitrary categories. We can split it up if you want to though, we've drawn the line at speciation, and that's fine. Most Darwinists would probably consider that microevolution (if they considered classifying it at all) because it can be pretty minor in the scheme of things. But if that's your hang up, no problem, we can work with that.

Anyway BS, I'm excited that you "intend to provide some evidence", That's good. Unfortunately this was the time to do that. We waited three days for you to provide some opening arguments with some reasons not to believe in evolution, and you just used your a point to make a semantical distinction. At this point the gloves are off, Don't "intend" to provide some evidence. Provide some evidence. Where's the beef?

Quote

In conclusion, I would ask that you ponder the following questions when considering whether evolutionary science is good science or not: Why is it that “pure” creation science is not given a fair shake by the scientific community? Why is it, by and large, disregarded as worthy of hypotheticals in light of inability to provide solid evidence for speciation?

Well for one thing, we have solid evidence for speciation.

But can I answer your question with another question? What seperates "pure" creation science from "impure" creation science?

If you answered "whether or not you really believe the bible the way I read it" then you'll have answered your own question about why "pure" creation science is not considered. It's because it's qualified not scientifically, but theologically. You might just as well have said "Why is it that creation theology is not given a fair shake by the scientific community... Well that's the reason... They're the scientific community.

This is actually really sad. Because I think there's good science to be done, that's not getting done, because the people who would be ina posotion to do it are preaching instead. Guillermo Gonzales, for instance, had some really interesting theories about the prospect of an intelligent order to the celestial bodies. But before the theory had an opportunity to ripen, he chose to write a book and do a christian speaking tour. He chose to make his theory a sermon rather than a serious hypothesis.

Dr. Gonzales didn't have scientific evidence that there was a creator God of the bible who loves us and became incarnate as Jesus. and as soon as he started using his theory for that he stopped doing science. So the theory he did have, that we are in a uniquely privileged place in the universe from which to do astronomy, never got off the ground.

That's the lesson here. If you want to do science, do science, If you want to do science that implies creation, do science! if you want to do "pure" creation science... well then do theology. because if you are a scientist, and you find something that implies a creator, you have to be willing to be scientific about what kind of creator that may or may not be. That includes, gods, aliens, extra-dimensional forces, dark energy, unknown natrulistic phenomina, and so on. You can'timmidiatly start a book tour with zondervan or scientists will know the Jig is up.

Quote

Why is evolutionary archaeology not more interested in demonstrating that the fossil record be used to establish that speciation might be due to Intelligent Design?

Same reason. Because Inteligent Design theorists have conflated ID with creationism. They're not supposed to be the same thing but they effectively are now. So nobody is asking those interesting questions seriously (because let's face it, if we don't take it as serious science why should they?)

Also because the fossil record is really messy and cataclysmic and doesn't testify terribly strongly to an intelligent designer in the scheme of things... Bad example.. I'll just pretend you said "genetic code" instead of "fossil record"

Quote

Also:“. . . Richard Potts, curator and director of the Smithsonian’s Human Origins Program, said the Smithsonian Institution has a “deep commitment to the study of evolution” and that the new permanent exhibit will answer “profound questions” about human origins.When asked by CNSNews.com why the exhibit does not include any reference to God or address the debate—even in scientific circles—about Darwinian evolution, Potts replied that the Natural History Museum ‘is a science museum, and all the objects that a museum can possibly display about the origins of humans have been uncovered in the context of doing the science of evolution.” (source: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/au/smithsonian-exhibition-deception-atheism)

What is wrong with this?

That is exactly what a museum curator should be saying

If you came out to California to visit the dead sea scrolls, and asked the curator at the church history museum why he didn't have anything up about evolution what do you think he would say?

"This is a theology museum, not a science museum"

Quote

Are we to infer from this that God has no place in science?

Does god have a place in Language Arts?How about Mathematics?

He has the same place in science.

He made science, just like he made Math and Lit, he is in charge of it, he is glorified when it is done well. God also made creation, so science is the study of what he made. Yes I should say God has a tremendous place in science.

But no we don't do our science by looking at the bible and then trying to find facts to fit it. That is the opposite of science!

In science we look at the facts and then try to create theories to fit those. And if the bible is true (and I believe it is) we will all find to our great delight that those theories end up matching the bible.

Now let me ask you a question:

If we are afraid to follow science wherever it leads us, and trust that the truth will eventually lead us back to Christianity. Then do we really believe Christianity to begin with? Why should a Christian believer ever be afraid to let someone follow the evidence without biblical help?

1. Is there reason to suspect that evolutionary science is biased?[/b][/quote]

Quote

Consider the following:

“The fact that scientists sometimes might cheat and can fail to be objective is something that is very well known,” said Daniele Fanelli, a scientific fraud researcher at the University of Edinburgh. “Research is full of conflicts of interest”….. “More than a third of scientists admitted to at least one instance of engaging in "questionable research practices" - basically scientific misdemeanors that include “dropping data points based on a gut feeling” and “changing the design, methodology or results of a study in response to pressures from a funding source,” the report stated.” (source: http://news.medill.northwestern.edu/chicago/news.aspx?id=157268)

...you realise of course you are citing a scientific study in the hopes of discrediting scientific studies.

What's the plan here? Is it like a WarGames argument? You are going to prove evolution is bad science, by first demonstrating that science itself is bad science and the only way not to do bad science is not to do science at all?

..Because that's kinda brilliant from a debate perspective...

Seriously though do you have any idea how much funding there is available for disproving evolution?"Paving new ground" is to science what "finding an untapped market" is to marketing.If there is any bias to satisfy doners, it is pushing scientists in the other direction.

P.S. You know who Jonathan Wells is right? He credits his anti-darwinian slant to reverend Sun-Myong-Moon. And he has come out publically saying he doesn't believe in AIDS...But to his credit, he does have a peer reviewed paper about "Xenopus eggs"... So you know.. take that for what it's worth

Quote

2. Back to basics for a bit- The Fossil Record

Now, granted, there have been fossil discoveries of creatures that contain peculiar mixtures of traits from more than one animal, yet evolutionary science will often indicate that it represents “proof” of evolution.

..

Once again. What you really need is some evidence that evolution is bad science. This is just an argument against an argument I made. Only you decided to make it one of your main points.

Even if you are completely right about the fossil record it won't demonstrate evolution is false. All it will do is dismantle my argument B4 subsection I.

I really really really really really really don't need that argument.

I am morbidly curious about this though

Quote

as an example, the great Archaeopteryx….considered by many to be a crucial part of the “missing link.” I had the occasion recently to discuss this creature with a biologist who is very familiar with it and, in the end, he was compelled to admit that this creature is not an irrefutable example of transition.

"not irrefutable" eh?

And you took that as support for your side?

Okay, well just let me know. because it loks transitional to me. What is it? Is it a bird, or a dinosaur? I can't tell.

While your at it also let me know what Lucy is, the a apherensis. Is that a little girl with some kinds deasease? or a big monkey with some kinda...slowly developing head...

Quote

I would also ask, why is that virtually every fossil presented as evidence for evolution is a vertebrate? Does it have anything to do with the fact that only .01% of the fossil record? Why is this? Food for thought.

Spinal chords developed while life was still in the oceans. We don't need invertebrate fossils to demonstrate transitional species because ocean life is so diverse and plentiful. We have living transitional animals.

You know trilobite though. He's an invertabrate.

Quote

There is much within the fossil record to explain why we see new species arising so abruptly and how it corresponds to a Biblical account of creation.

How is that actually? you lost me.If we hold to a 6 day creation shouldn't we see no new species arising at all? ( i mean except for the first couple hours of course) I just sort of assumed you believed that all life was created about 6000 years ago pretty much at once and then burriedin the flood. Which would mean no new species ever arrive except during those first 6 days.

Now me? I believe new species arise all the time, and have been for millions of years, I think God makes them, praise God. You though... I don't know how you want to explain that...

Christian-Evolutionists such as my opponent are compromising their Biblical beliefs for no good reason.

I believe in the unique divine inspiration and the entire trustworthiness and authority of the bible. Just what in your opinion have I compromised?

Quote

The Bible explains why we observe so many different species in our world

Yes, God made them. I believe that.

Quote

There is simply no reason to believe that any of the studied forms of evolutionary speciation are even necessary.

That's the first true thing you've said all morning!

It's true. Evolution was not necessary. God could have made us all in an instant, or in 6, 24 hour days, or not at all! Totally unnecessary.But something does not have to be nesisary in order to be reality.

Was it necessary that I just ate 6 Jack In The Box Tacos?No!Was it even a good idea?probably not

but that doesn't change the fact that it happened.

Quote

As a Christian, my opponent knows that the Bible teaches a sudden and instant origin to the birth of man.

I believe that too!

for a while there were only monkeys, and then BAM! a human!

That was my God of course.

Now to be clear. I'm not terribly sure about your exegesis. Because if you're refering to the passage in Genesis and taking it literally i think you had better rethink it.

But instant. Yes!That's what we call in debate, a "bright line"

Consider this: The bible we both read says God created Adam "from the dust"

Now I can only speak for myself, but when I used to take that "literaly" I believed that there was a garden, and God like... Madea breeze blow, and dust kicked up into the air into a dust cloud the approximate height of a human, and then god sort of magically made a human inside that dust cloud.. like out of the dust.

But dust is primarily Silicon Dioxide. To make a human, you need a lot of Carbon and hydrogen. Now maybe there was some ash in the dust, I'll buy that, but the hydrogen is really an issue. I meanof course god could have just MADE the hydrogen, or used the air, but then Adam isn't really "literaly" being made from the dust now is he?

So then if i want to take that passage literally, what i need to believe is that God created a Nuclear fission reaction to transform the silicon atoms back into single proton parts. Well a typical fission reaction releases a couple million eV per event (that's per atom of hydrogen) Now a TNT explosion is only 1 or 2 eV depending on how much you use. So basically we're talking about a much larger explosion than an Atomic Bomb Here. For a human you would need several mole of hydrogen. One mole is equal to a bit more than 6.022 X 10^23.

For perspective. 1 mole of marshmallows would be enough to make a layer of marshmellows covering the whole earth 12 miles thick. 1 mole of pennies could be distributed to all the currently-living people of the world so that they could spend a million dollars per hour every hour (day and night) for the rest of their lives. A mole is a very big number. It's important that you understand this, because we are going to need several mole on hydrogen to make Adam, and for every atom we are now creating a much larger explosion than an atomic bomb.

So I'm not exagerating, when I say that in order for God to "literally" make Adam from dust, he would literally have to blow up the universe

I think the passage was figurative

Quote

The Bible gives no indication that we evolved over millions of years

It also gives no indication that in 1492 Columbus sailed the ocean blue. What's your point?

Quote

so how does he resolve to accept a blended version of evolution and creationism?

I don't adopt a "blended" view. "blended implies i believe half of each. I don't. I believe all of both. Creationism is true. 100% God made the world and everything in it. Evolution is also true, the best science is that he did it through a gradual process of evolution by natural selection.

No blending

Quote

4. Popular belief

I cannot help but respond, at this point, to my opponents assertion that evolutionary science is good science simply because “most scientists accept it.” While I see his point, it is a weak pair of legs for such a weighty belief, don’t you think?

Well that's exactly the point buddy. I don't NEED a good argument. A weak one will do just fine, because I just won my main contention "There is no reason whatsoever not to believe in evolution" at the point where i win that, you could solve this debate with a coin toss. and so if i give anything to defend evolution, no matter how weak, even if it's just "the word evolution sounds cool" I win the debate.

Literally none of that helps you prove evolution is bad science. (unless you want to run with the war games argument from your B1)

A doesn't matter. b1 hurts you as much as it hurts me, b2 and 4 are just rebuttals that you've repurposed as openers, and B3 Is something I already believe.

CONCLUSION:

Quote

If he honestly believes that evolutionary science is “good science,” he must successfully demonstrate, for the purposes of this argument, that it has and is giving some recognition to a Creator as means of explaining the complex occurrence of "speciation"

Here's how:

God created the world and everything in it by means of evolution by natural selection. The wonderful diversity of species came about, because of Him, by this means. Praise God.

My main argument, My primary voting issue, and hopefully the primary topic of discussion throughout this debate will be the following.

There is no reason, whatsoever, not to believe that evolution is good science.

BS put nothing down on this argument.

I tried to help. I stalled for him. I Explained that it was a problem, i got him to put up opening arguments fro himself before I responded... It was no use. I still have nothing, not a word, not a semblance of an argument that I can place against this from BS.

there is only one explanation for why he didn't even try to provide me with a reason not to believe evolution: He can't

There is no reason. If there were. He would have given it to me by now.

Isn’t this alone enough? I mean if there is absolutely no reason not to believe it, and almost every working scientist there is does believe it, doesn’t that add enough to the side of believing it to make it more than just a coin toss?

No, this is not enough. Aside from it being an argument ad populum,

Nice use of latin. But you're mistaken.

An "appeal to the people" or "argumentum ad populum" refers to regular people.

So If i had said "Most people believe evolution" that would be an ad populum.

There is such a thing as an appeal to athourity or "argumentum ad verecundiam" which refers to a supposed expert who is in fact, not really an expert in the relevant field.

Unfortunatley inthis case, we are asking "is evolution good science" and scientists are indisputably the experts in "good science" so this is neither argumentum ad populum nor argumentum ad verecundiam

Quote

In fact, I could just as easily turn this around ask you why ALL of science has not come to believe evolution?

For the same reason not all Christians have come to believe evolution. Science, like Christianity, is unfortunately not an exclusive club.

Quote

Also, to illustrate the lack of validity to your statement, consider the following statement in relation: Most Scientists Believe The Moon is in Orbit Around The Earth.” Contrary to your statement, this statement contains irrefutable evidence to support it. In other words, one would have to be substantially incompetent to deny that the moon is in orbit around the earth. In contrast to your statement, we are not compelled to reach the same conclusion because, at present, evolutionary theory to account for the beginning and diversification of life is littered with enormous gaps and a lack of scientific proofs.

Okay! Our education together into logical fallacies continues!

This is called "begging the question" It happens when you take for granted, the very claim you are defending, and use it as evidence to support itself.

The Claim we are arguing is that Evolution is a Scientific truth, in the same way that "the moon orbits around the earth" is a scientific truth.

You can't use the fact that that isn't true as evidence that it isn't true. Because you haven't shown that it isn't true yet.

Even if not. In order to explain away this incredible inequality in the scientific community you have only 2 options:

One, you could believe you personally know more about biology than most biologistsOr two, you could believe that scientists are so devoted to not following God that they’ve allowed their eyes to be blinded from the truth.

I choose neither. Instead, what I assert is that science has failed to adequately provide, beyond hypotheticals, critical evidence for the process that it alleges has created complex life and brought about its diversification. Even to this day, after decades of hypothesizing, testing, researching, and digging….I have yet to see ONE SINGLE convincing argument for speciation.

But if you go with option two, how do you account for all the Evolutionist Scientist Christians?

How do you account for Dr. Francis Collins, the head of the human Genome project, who just wrote a book providing evidence for belief in God, Also being an evolutionist?

I cannot account for them nor do I see any value, insofar as this discussion is concerned, for giving their ‘beliefs’ any merit. If you would like to introduce certain interpretations these scientists have made for consideration, I would be glad to review and discuss.

2. I have demonstrated evolution according to BS’s own criterion.Biblestudent and I are in the process of hammering down exactly what it is that would count as satisfying evidence to convince him, my debate opponent, that evolution is true. Once I get him to give me a straight answer about what is satisfactory I have no doubt I’ll be able to provide it for him.

I have already indicated where one of my largest contentions resides….that is, in the area of macroevolutionary theory. I had invited you to provide something in your opening argument that convinced you science could adequately account for speciation. Where is the information pertaining to this aspect of your argument?

At last the time has come!

I want to be clear that you agreed to this criterion. You wanted proof of speciation. We defined that in terms of mating preference. I told you the best way to do it would be to show you how to make it happen in your own house by means of artificial selection. You didn't agree directally but i put it back in front of you 2 more times, and the last time i said very clearly, that i would take your dosgy responses as affirmation unless you took your last chance to say "no". You didn't say "no" Now it's too late.

Fruit flies.

Fruit flies are small, live about a week, and they lay lots of eggs, so they are easy to study in this context. They eat fruit of course, but we're going to change that.

All we need to do is get some fruit flies, and split them into two groups. Put one of them in a little webbed cage with starch based food, and the others into a little webbed cage with maltose based food. That way, we can get the two groups to become different species from one another as fast as possible.

Obviously what's going to happen is all the flies in the starch group that are good at eating starch are going to survive, and the others will die. The same will happen in the other cage with the maltose eating fruit flies. After a couple generations, you won't have any common fruit flies anymore. You'll have some starch flies, and some maltose flies.

Now put them back together. The starch flies will mate with other starch flies, and the maltose flies will mate with other maltose flies.

bam! 2 new species.

If you decide you don't want to do this experiment for yourself it's okay. It's already been repeated hundreds of timeshttp://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/338370

I want to put some ink down on this, in my opening argument, but I really doubt I’ll need it. If by some change I’m winning contention A and losing on B I want to have the option to return back to these points on case, but as long as I’m getting stuff done everywhere else we don’t even have to touch these things

Anyway you can go ahead and answer those as briefly as you want to. You should put something fourth as an answer to them but you don’t need much at all. For instance under IV, if you just want to say “the flood” that’s plenty, and if I decide I need to disagree with you I’ll take it from there. I’d be really happy to see you win on all 5 of these if I win on A and get just a tiny bit on B because that would mean I definitely won the debate.

Since I see no argument being made here, I will not attempt a counter.

Okay. Well since you didn't put anything on this, I feel like I would be foolish not to take advantage of that.

I. You put something down about fossils in your opening statements. So I'll apply that here. I'm still waiting to learn whether you think Archeopteryx was a bird or a dinosaur and whether A Apherensis was a human or a monkey

II. Why didn't Hawaii get any of the biodiversity the rest of the world got after the flood? Why are there Ostriches in Africa and Emus in australia. I believe they evolved like that in those places. What do you believe?

III. If you look in a mirror really closley, you will see that you have a third eyelid next to your nose. It's very small, and oriented to slide out horizontally, but of course, you have no muscles to move it with. Sharks and birds have translucent eyelids like that too, but they are big enough to cover ther whole eye and they can control them to use them like goggles.

I understand why God gave charks and birds goggles, but why did he give you a pair of crappy useless ones?

IV. Did Noah take trilobites on the ark or what? The ground is full of those things at the lower layers, and today we have none. How come none of the humans died early on in the flood? None of them slept in that day? None of the sinful people clamoring for floating objects killed one another early on? Why are mostly Marine animals burried deeper (where the things that would have died first in the flood should be burried, while advanced creatures that are really bad at swimming survived longer?

V. How come I have instructions in my Genes that say to give me a tail, and then other instructions later that say take it away? Id god just teasing me because he known I wish I had a prehensile tail and he wants every cell in my body to contain a reminder that I might have had one?

I have been asked by Emergence/PeterB to make a correction to one of BibleStudent's claims. He would like it to be clear that he is not a participant in this debate so he as asked me to post a statement. Because his statement is a matter of fact regarding BibleStudent's claim, I have agreed.

Quote

In this debate BibleStudent stated the following:

Quote

I had the occasion recently to discuss this creature [Archaeopteryx] with a biologist who is very familiar with it and, in the end, he was compelled to admit that this creature is not an irrefutable example of transition. Good science would responsibly present it for what it truly is rather than “proof.”

In this passage BibleStudent is likely talking about a conversation with me. I feel that he severely misrepresents my position in the passage quoted above.

It is not correct that I was “compelled to admit that this creature is not an irrefutable example of transition”. During our conversation I never changed my stance that Archaeopteryx undeniably and without doubt represents a transitional form between reptilelike and birdlike animals and is strong evidence for such a transition.

In our conversation we did not talk about “proof”. I hold the position that “proof” is a purely mathematical concept which isn’t applicable to natural sciences or any other field outside of mathematics. As empiricist I also hold the position that all knowledge is dependent on our experience and therefore no knowledge is exempt from potential error. I therefore told BibleStudent in our conversation, that I accept the possibility of being wrong in my assessment. This doesn’t negate that I – at the current time, with the current state of my knowledge – have not the least doubt that an evolutionary transition from reptilelike animals to birdlike animals happened in the ancient past and that the fossil remains of Archaeopteryx are strong evidence of such a transition and represent – without doubt - a transitional form.

It is without the shadow of a doubt and without any tiptoeing and totally undeniable a transitional form! I hope that was clear enough. If you haven't got this from what i have written so far, i can only assume that you have a severe comprehension problem.

All of my convictions can be wrong. They only exist in my mind on the basis of my personal knowledge acquired through my senses and the tools i could access up to this point in time. None of my convictions are unfalsifiable. I could be wrong about everything.

How can he go from adamantly claiming it is UNDENIABLE that this is a transitional fossil to stating that he could be wrong and then accuse me of misrepresenting his position? When someone says something is UNDENIABLE, does that not indicate it is full-proof? If not, then what does UNDENIABLE mean?

You see, this is what I am talking about when I point a finger at some of the science we are presented with. When you indicate that something is UNDENIABLE, you are stating more than just a mere opinion….you are making a strong statement that implies irrefutability.

It's undeniable (in Emergence's mind) that scientifically speaking Archeopteryx is a transitional form (and indeed that's correct) It's also true, that scientifically speaking everything is always open to scrutiny, and it could be that next year we'll excavate around Archeopteryx and find the bones of some alien pranksters with a fossil-forging machine, at which point Emergence would gladly reform his posotion on Archeopteryx. Still it will remain true, that it had been, the undeniable scientific consensus back in 2010

If you hold him to a greater standard of consistency than that. You are going to have big problems when it comes to reading the bible.

Lev 24:17 (if anyone kills anyone, kill them!)

Anyway BS I don't think we need to hold a debate about Emergence. The judges know both sides now, and you have enough on your plate just dealing with me.

For our purposes, I'm perfectly happy to grant for you that Archey is too much of a bird for your liking, or else too much of a reptile. Just let me know which one and I'll be happy to provide you with a fossil that represents more of what you consider to be a middle ground. Archeopteryx is far from the only one we have.

And let me say again, what I said in the commentary thread, I understand I've given you a great deal to respond to. If you like, feel free to ignore my last two posts of the time being and just focus on the first reply I offered to your Opener. The one on your section A. We should be able to finish debating about your section A pretty quick, and then move on to your Bs, and then my off case.

As I understood it, the primary purpose for engaging in this discussion in the first place was meant to afford each of us an opportunity to represent how we relate evolutionary science to our Christian beliefs. You have stated (or at least implied) that you feel evolutionary theory corresponds to the Biblical narratives on many issues. Your assertion seems to be that theories related to topics such as speciation, for example, blend well with the Biblical creation of man. If I have misunderstood, please feel free to correct me.

Rather than continue with all of these conversational formalities, I would like to cut to the chase and narrow down this discussion….it has become, in my opinion, very fragmented. I am not big on formal debate anyway and after reading through your last three posts, I do not even know where to begin in terms of replying.

First, if my summation of your position above is incorrect, please fine tune it so that I better understand how you tie evolution and the God of the Bible together.

Second, you commented in your opening argument (post #9) that “evolution is implied by the biblical narrative.” Could you please be a little more specific as to how you reach this conclusion?

Lastly, could you please just provide some comments on how and when “sin” became an issue.

Also, if you would like to pose 2-3 questions back to me as part of your reply (or even in the interim), please feel free.